About this Page -- This is a discussion on Any opinions on the START treaty being pushed by Obambi?? Page 6. within the forum Politics. I don't understand his argument. I don't see how we are weakening ourselves. We still have enough weapons to do ...

I don't understand his argument. I don't see how we are weakening ourselves. We still have enough weapons to do plenty of damage (is 1500 not enough?), we are still modernizing ($180 Billion over the next decade), and we still have plans for regional strategic defenses (which is all we could realistically do). Not only that, but we maintain verification so that we can check their nuclear weapons and material safeguards programs. Hell, practically all nuclear material material from the black market is from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even if Russia is cheating here or there, it's better than no verification at all. And finally a failure to reach an agreement on a treaty with the Russians, would have been devastating to our diplomatic relationship with them which is something I believe Iran would be in favor for.

And the only specific example he gives of weakening is near the end, when he says:
“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”

I've read this:
"Second, New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses. The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans. Although the treaty prohibits the conversion of existing launchers for intercontinental and submarine-based ballistic missiles, our military leaders say they do not want to do that because it is more expensive and less effective than building new ones for defense purposes."

Among the two most alarming revelations is the already completed sale and delivery, to Venezuela by Russia, of nearly 2,000 advanced, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles capable of hitting aircraft as high as 19,000 feet. Equally and perhaps more alarming is an October agreement between Iran and Venezuela. The agreement establishes a joint ground-to-ground missile base on Venezuelan soil and calls for the sharing of missile technology and the training of technicians and officers. In addition, Venezuela may use the missiles as it chooses for “national needs” and in case of “emergency.” Several types of missiles will be deployed, giving Venezuela the ability to strike targets throughout South and Central America and throughout the U.S.

The dangers arising from the Marxist, cult-of-personality rule of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez are many. These weapons are only the largest and most destructive purchased or finagled by Chavez. He has also purchased an enormous number of Russian assault rifles — the real thing, fully automatic military rifles, not the non-existent “assault weapons” of gun control imaginations and press releases — and related weapons and ammunition.

Keep in mind that these are only the sales and transfers about which American authorities and the public are aware.

Among Republicans announcing their support were Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Bob Bennett of Utah.

Tennessee has more to gain than any state (save perhaps New Mexico) from the rather large modernization budget that came along with the treaty. If it were horrible treaty, then that likely wouldn't justify their negotiation. However, it really doesn't seem to be that bad. They could have chosen to be thorns in the administration's side...but instead they took the opportunity to secure a big chunk of change for Oak Ridge. If UPF is actually constructed, it will go a long way toward securing long-term jobs and investments in the area.

Among Republicans announcing their support were Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Bob Bennett of Utah.

Among Republicans announcing their support were Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, George V. Voinovich of Ohio, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Bob Bennett of Utah.[/QUOTE]

I didn't vote for Alexander the last time he ran and won't be voting for either in the future even though I doubt the dhimis would ever run anyone I would vote for either.

The worst thing about Alexander and Corker is that either could have singlehandedly killed the 'pedophile protection act.'

That was a hate crime amendment inserted into the last defense spending bill by the democrats that made it a hate crime with a list of a heinz 57 variety of sex perverts and included all moslims as being potential victims of hate crimes.

Senator Grassley offered an amendment to the amendment that made it clear the bill would never infringe on first amendment rights and failed by one vote, if his amendment would have passed the dhimmis would have pulled the whole bill because they want to control all public discourse so that it adheres to what they consider to be politically correct rhetoric.

There were six republican senators who could have voted for the Grassley amendment so that it would have passed but registered a cowardly 'no vote' instead.

Alexander and Corker were two of the six.

I have some other issues with them as well.
--------------------------------

"If one reads the text of the document carefully then it becomes clear that Americans will really have to reduce the number of [nuclear] warheads, while if we [Russia] want to reach the levels defined by the document, will actually have to increase the amount of warheads," Mikhail Margelov, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, said in an interview with TVTc television channel.

Washington has agreed to limitations on its ballistic-missile-defense options (something the administration’s representatives vehemently deny); ambiguous language on rail-mobile ballistic missiles; vague limitations on conventional global-strike systems and a significant degradation of the START verification regime from 1991. All these measures limit U.S. defense options not vis-à-vis Russia, but North Korea, China, and in the future, Iran; and provide the Russian Federation’s Strategic Rocket Forces with unfair advantages.
Furthermore, the treaty’s preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense and remarks by senior Russian officials suggest an attempt by Russia to limit or constrain current and future U.S. missile-defense capabilities by threatening to withdraw from the treaty should the U.S. expand its missile defenses “qualitatively” or “quantitatively.” Apparently, it will be up to Russia to define these quantitative and/or qualitative criteria, forcing U.S. decision-makers to look to Moscow every time a significant missile defense decision has to be made.
---------------------------------------

Announcing the modernization of Russian nuclear forces in 2007, then-President Putin illustrated the Russian worldview by linking nuclear modernization to the U.S. war in Iraq: “Russia, thank God, isn’t Iraq [and] has enough strength and power to defend itself and its interests, both on its territory and in other parts of the world.”[2] For many in Russia, the U.S. is still glavny protivnik (principal adversary), and nuclear arms control does not mean any limits on its ability to maintain modern nuclear weapons. Yet Moscow strives to limit U.S. missile defense and strategic conventional capabilities.

Tennessee has more to gain than any state (save perhaps New Mexico) from the rather large modernization budget that came along with the treaty. If it were horrible treaty, then that likely wouldn't justify their negotiation. However, it really doesn't seem to be that bad. They could have chosen to be thorns in the administration's side...but instead they took the opportunity to secure a big chunk of change for Oak Ridge. If UPF is actually constructed, it will go a long way toward securing long-term jobs and investments in the area.

They're pretty deep into UPF from what I understand. They're into Stage 2, and Stage 3 is construction.

They're pretty deep into UPF from what I understand. They're into Stage 2, and Stage 3 is construction.

They are. It was proceeding along at a decent pace by 2004 and is still going strong (stronger, actually). But, you will find a lot of projects that never made it out of design and into construction in Oak Ridge and other DOE facilities. I will say that there are a fair number of folks around Y-12 that are fairly confident in the way things are going that construction may happen. But, the price tag on UPF is huge. They were estimating 1-2 billion back in the day, but that was under a fair amount of pressure from the managing contractor to keep the number reasonable. They will lucky to build it for under 4.

Any level of continued investment is a good sign for Oak Ridge. But, because of the huge price tag associated with this facility, I don't think you can feel super-comfortable about it being constructed. I can say that if construction does proceed, I would feel comfortable renewing a career in Oak Ridge, because you don't make that kind of investment and then move capability elsewhere.

Both last year's Nuclear Posture Review and the recent modernization provisions in START were very positive signs for UPF and Oak Ridge modernization.

I hope it makes it. Wouldn't mind working at Y-12 at some point in the future.

Even if it doesn't make it, there can be a career there. I was a bit nervous to go that route, however, without feeling more confident about the long-term future of the plant. But, I am a chemical engineer and if the weapons complex goes south, my ability to move into the traditional chemical sector from the complex would be limited. And, nuclear power doesn't have a lot of use for most chemical engineers. So, I could potentially be in a tough spot. That's why I turned down an opportunity there recently. As a nuclear engineer, you would probably be in better shape if you had to walk away from the weapons complex.

Even if it doesn't make it, there can be a career there. I was a bit nervous to go that route, however, without feeling more confident about the long-term future of the plant. But, I am a chemical engineer and if the weapons complex goes south, my ability to move into the traditional chemical sector from the complex would be limited. And, nuclear power doesn't have a lot of use for most chemical engineers. So, I could potentially be in a tough spot. That's why I turned down an opportunity there recently. As a nuclear engineer, you would probably be in better shape if you had to walk away from the weapons complex.

The only route I see into it from a nuclear engineering standpoint would be criticality safety. Which I wouldn't mind doing, but it would help to have that certificate which I do not. Although I was pretty good at it. I applied to their general online submissions. Bout all I can do since HR depts are a waste of time at job fairs and such.

I think I'm going to end up at the NRC. Which I wouldn't mind. I think it would be good experience overall.

NRC would likely be good. I knew a guy that had a long and successful career there. He left a few years ago and is trying to make his retirement money in the private sector for a few more years before official retirement.

The nuclear engineering is largely criticality safety...and there's plenty of work in that area. I would imagine that a lot of the UPF's criticality safety design is still being done in house.

I would probably talk to some professors about contacts at the labs or Y-12...that could help. There is no doubt that having some contacts can be very important to getting through HR there (and a ton of other places).

NRC would likely be good. I knew a guy that had a long and successful career there. He left a few years ago and is trying to make his retirement money in the private sector for a few more years before official retirement.

The nuclear engineering is largely criticality safety...and there's plenty of work in that area. I would imagine that a lot of the UPF's criticality safety design is still being done in house.

I would probably talk to some professors about contacts at the labs or Y-12...that could help. There is no doubt that having some contacts can be very important to getting through HR there (and a ton of other places).

That's actually a good idea. I know it's an obvious one, but now that you've mentioned it, I had sort of a eureka moment in that I have just the guy in mind. And it might actually work since criticality safety is a relatively small close knit profession. I also recently saw him at a particular Christmas dinner with a company doing UPF work which would make sense.